Mass Effect 3 - The Indoctrination Theory

April 1st, 2012, 15:23

Originally Posted by Monk
The problem isn't explaining the ending, it's the end not connected to C&C throughout the game.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
EXACTLY.

Lack of C&C-y climax is definitely a problem, maybe even the biggest one, but I donīt think thereīs really a "the problem" with the ending.
Itīs simply a failure on a lot of levels.
Lack of clarity, lack of consistency, lack of polish, lack of diversity, lack of putting the war assets mechanics to fruition, etc., the ending has it all.
Itīs close to a perfect storm of shittiness. Couple it with the fact it rests at the end of a trilogy, not one self contained game, and itīs quite easy to see why it became quite a phenomenon .

Originally Posted by azarhal
Also, TIM last discussion depends on your interaction with him through all of ME3 (paragon/renegade choices). Miss one (the first one is easy to miss) and you won't have the same outcome.

This, btw, is true only very mildly. Out of curiousity, I went through the last dialogue with TIM without picking any of the red/blue choices and once the dialogue was over I was still given a chance to save the day via renegade interrupt and got the last conversation with Anderson afterwards.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
But Indoctrination Theory was created more out of disbelief that Bioware could have screwed up so badly rather than any clues contained in the game.

Yeah, The Incompetence Theory is the correct TIT here, the ending is clearly a result of horrible storytelling + horrible planning.

Originally Posted by fatBastard()
2) The Arrival may have been a DLC but the whether or not you played the DLC the game assumes that you did by starting ME3 with Shepard in house arrest. In ME3 the Arrival DID happen so we have to go with established lore.

Playing Arrival is not really relevant, ME3 itself has a codex entry that touches upon it: "Although it has recently been proven that mass relays can be destroyed, a ruptured relay liberates enough energy to ruin any terrestrial world in the relay's solar system."
The likely idea behind the blasts in ME3 is that the amount of EMS determines whether The Crucible is able to channel released energy without negative externalities or not, but it certainly isnīt communicated very well (and the nonsensical Normandy escape scene surely doesnīt help).

BioWare seems to be getting mixed up, as of late, between the roles of producer and consumer in business. Such confusion is apparent in the "artistic integrity" flap raised by Bioware in connection with Mass Effect 3, and in the "innovation" flap BioWare raised in connection with Dragon Age II.

Art and innovation are product elements that can enhance product value in the video game industry, just as art and innovation can enhance product value in traditional industries such as the automotive industry. Nevertheless art and innovation are only valuable to the extent that they benefit the customer, and are valued by the customer. Successful businesses traditionally determine the customer value of product art and product innovation by research and testing prior to introducing a new product into the marketplace.

BioWare apparently doesn't understand that business does not, and cannot, dictate product value to its customers. To the contrary, it is customer choice that dictates product value, and business value in turn. The video game industry is no exception.

True, but I don't believe that any publicity is good publicity. I also think that, while DA2 was heavily criticized, a lot of people thought that it might have been just a blip and that Bioware will learn from the experience. Problems with ME3 show that it was not a blip but more of a systemic failure. It's still early but it will be interesting to see how ME3's sales compare to ME2's. Or how next Bioware's release sells…